Roger W. Titus

The case involved defendant William Lawrence Cassidy, who was indicted under the federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A), for using Twitter and other websites to post messages that allegedly harassed and caused substantial emotional distress to A.Z., a Buddhist leader in another state. Cassidy moved to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the statute criminalized protected speech. The court compared Twitter posts and blogs to voluntary public bulletin boards that recipients could choose to view or block, distinguishing them from directed communications like emails or calls, and held that the statute as applied to these public postings violated the First Amendment, resulting in dismissal of the indictment.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved Dr. Edward McReady, a former Collegiate Associate Professor at University of Maryland University College, who sued Governor Martin O'Malley, the university, and various staff members after his contract was not renewed and he was terminated in 2007. He alleged that these actions stemmed from his complaints about job assignments, course scheduling, and other internal matters, raising claims under the First Amendment, Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, abusive discharge, intentional interference with contracts, defamation, and breach of contract. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted while denying McReady's cross-motion, concluding that the evidence did not support any viable claims based on the undisputed facts regarding his employment disputes and communications.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

The case involved criminal charges against Lauren Stevens, former associate general counsel at GlaxoSmithKline, for obstruction of justice, falsification of documents, and making false statements to the FDA during an investigation into the company's alleged off-label promotion of the drug Wellbutrin. The district court addressed multiple pretrial motions, including the applicability of a good-faith reliance on counsel defense and challenges to the indictment. The court determined that 18 U.S.C. § 1519 is a specific-intent crime, making the advice-of-counsel defense available, and found that the grand jury had been misinstructed on the law. As a result, the court dismissed the indictment without prejudice, allowing the government to seek a new indictment from a properly instructed grand jury, while denying or deferring rulings on other motions.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

In Willever v. United States, the plaintiffs brought a Federal Tort Claims Act suit alleging that negligence by National Naval Medical Center staff caused Captain Edward Willever's death after he was found off his cardiac monitor and in cardiac arrest. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability on the ground that the United States was precluded from contesting it because it had not filed a certificate and report from a qualified expert with the Maryland Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office as required by the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. The court denied the motion, holding that the state statute's expert-filing requirement does not apply to the United States under the FTCA because it would impose an unconsented burden inconsistent with sovereign immunity and because the FTCA requires plaintiffs to affirmatively prove negligence.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

This case is a putative class action by former Marriott employees who received Retirement Deferred Stock Bonus Awards from 1966 to 1991 and allege that the company failed to pay the promised retirement benefits after they reached age 65, in violation of ERISA's minimum vesting rules, requiring reformation of the awards. Plaintiffs also brought a breach of contract claim. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, improper simultaneous pursuit of ERISA claims under sections 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3), inapplicability of ERISA to pre-enactment terminations, and ERISA preemption of the contract claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the ERISA vesting claim only as to plaintiff England (who left employment before ERISA's enactment) while allowing the remaining claims to proceed because the core dispute over ERISA's applicability to the awards must be resolved first and other defenses were premature or inapplicable at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a surety company, Developers Surety, that issued performance and payment bonds for a construction project between AHL Development and Resurrection Baptist Church, with PNC Bank as a co-obligee. After the church declared AHL in default and demanded completion under the bonds, Developers Surety sued the church and bank for breach of contract, alleging improper payments and failure to follow contract procedures, while seeking a declaration that its bond obligations were discharged. The defendants moved to stay the litigation and compel mediation and arbitration pursuant to clauses in the building contract. The court stayed the action under the Federal Arbitration Act, holding that the contract's arbitration provisions were incorporated by reference into the bonds and that federal policy favoring arbitration bound the surety to those terms, with no waiver by the defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Doe v. Walker, a member of the Maryland National Guard and the Military Voter Protection Project sued the state, alleging that its deadlines for receiving absentee ballots in the November 2010 election deprived absent uniformed services and overseas voters of their ability to vote in state offices. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the federal UOCAVA as moot, along with their claims under Maryland law and the Equal Protection Clause. However, it granted a preliminary injunction extending the ballot receipt deadline by ten days for state elections, finding that the existing deadline imposed a severe burden on the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the state's asserted interests did not justify that burden.

electionscivil rights

This multidistrict litigation consolidated dozens of state-law tort suits brought by American soldiers, veterans, and contractors alleging injuries from exposure to contaminated water and toxic burn-pit emissions at U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan under KBR’s LOGCAP III contracts. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting the political-question doctrine, derivative sovereign immunity under the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception, and preemption under the FTCA’s combatant-activities exception. The court denied the motions without prejudice, holding that the defenses could not be resolved on the existing record because the claims might prove justiciable if discovery shows the contractors acted outside military directives. It therefore ordered a limited initial phase of discovery to develop facts necessary to evaluate the applicability of the asserted immunities and preemption defenses.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case involved nonmember employees who had objected to paying union fees for political and non-representational activities, claiming their objections were permanent, but who were later charged full dues after failing to renew those objections annually under the union's policy. Plaintiffs sued the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, alleging the annual renewal requirement breached the union's duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act by being arbitrary, lacking substantive authority, and designed to maximize revenue. The court assessed the policy under the duty of fair representation standard, which prohibits actions that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, while noting that nonmembers bear the burden of affirmatively objecting and that prior Supreme Court precedent does not presume ongoing dissent. It concluded that the union could require annual renewals and convert non-objectors accordingly, as the policy served a legitimate purpose and did not violate the duty.

labor & employmentfree speech

This case concerns whether a Maryland federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over an Illinois resident who obtained default judgments against a Delaware corporation headquartered in Maryland and enrolled those judgments in several Maryland circuit courts to enforce them. The court held that personal jurisdiction exists and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss along with related motions. It reasoned that enrolling the foreign judgments qualifies as transacting business under Maryland's long-arm statute, which reaches the limits of due process, and that the defendant's voluntary use of Maryland courts satisfies minimum contacts requirements. The underlying dispute is a declaratory judgment action by the plaintiff's insurer regarding coverage for the judgments, but the opinion addresses only the threshold jurisdictional question.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a dispute between software licensors Micro Focus and Canadian licensee Bell Canada over alleged overuse of licensed software in violation of an End User License Agreement (EULA), with claims for breach of contract and copyright infringement filed in federal court in Maryland. Bell Canada moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the EULA's forum-selection clause—which stated that the agreement would be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the country whose law applied (Maryland law for North American acquisitions)—was unenforceable and did not constitute consent to jurisdiction. The court held that the clause was ambiguous and ineffective to waive objections to personal jurisdiction, particularly because it did not clearly designate a specific court or forum and could lead to illogical results in cases lacking federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Finding no other grounds for personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute or constitutional minimum contacts (which Micro Focus did not contest), the court granted the motion and dismissed the case.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a plaintiff who tripped and fell on a yellow plastic newspaper band at the entrance to a WMATA Metrorail station in Maryland, alleging negligence for failure to inspect, maintain, and remove debris from the premises. The court granted WMATA's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence under Maryland law. The core reasoning was that there was no evidence showing how long the band had been on the ground or that WMATA had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard with sufficient time to address it, as required to survive summary judgment. Even assuming a heightened duty as a common carrier, the lack of facts on notice meant no genuine issue for trial existed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved environmental groups suing a wind energy company to halt construction and operation of a large turbine project in West Virginia, alleging that the turbines would kill endangered Indiana bats and thereby violate Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. After consolidating a preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits and reviewing extensive evidence from surveys, acoustic data, and expert testimony, the court determined that Indiana bats were present at the site and that future operation of the turbines created a likelihood of unauthorized takes. The court concluded that the ESA prohibits such takes even for wholly future actions and that the project's voluntary mitigation measures were insufficient to eliminate the risk, leading to injunctive relief. Core reasoning centered on the statutory text prioritizing species protection, the sufficiency of evidence showing probable bat presence and mortality, and the need for certainty that no take would occur without an incidental take permit.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Earl Whittley Davis, who was convicted by a jury of six counts related to the 2004 robbery and murder of Jason Schwindler, with the government's case relying heavily on DNA evidence matching Davis to items at the crime scene. Prior to trial, Davis moved to suppress the DNA profile, arguing it had been obtained unconstitutionally when his clothing—seized in 2000 during a hospital visit for a gunshot wound—was later provided to another police department, tested, and entered into a local DNA database. The court denied the motion to suppress after a hearing. The core reasoning centered on the circumstances of the original seizure of the clothing as evidence, its retention by police, and the subsequent lawful use of the resulting DNA profile as an investigative tool without violating the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal addressing whether Chapter 13 debtors can avoid a wholly unsecured second lien on their principal residence under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and § 1322(b)(2), where the first lien already exceeds the property's value. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order allowing the Johnsons to void First Mariner Bank's lien on their home, which had a value of $555,000 against a first lien of over $661,000 and a second lien of about $82,000. The court reasoned that § 506(a) classifies the second lien as an unsecured claim because it lacks any equity in the collateral, so the antimodification exception in § 1322(b)(2) for claims secured by the debtor's principal residence does not apply. It distinguished Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, which barred modification only of partially secured homestead liens, and found support in other circuits' rulings that wholly unsecured junior liens can be stripped off in Chapter 13 plans.

propertyprocedure

Dr. Duane R. Bonds, an African-American female physician employed by the National Institutes of Health, sued federal officials alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Civil Service Reform Act after she was removed as project officer from two sickle cell disease clinical trials and later terminated from federal service. She claimed the actions were discriminatory based on race and sex and retaliatory for her reporting the unauthorized creation of immortalized cell lines from study participants without consent. The court had previously dismissed the Civil Service Reform Act claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In this opinion, the court denied the plaintiff's requests for additional discovery, finding that counsel had ample opportunity to depose witnesses and obtain relevant information earlier. The reasoning focused on the applicable burdens of proof, the need to distinguish protected whistleblowing and discrimination from other workplace disputes, and the lack of demonstrated necessity for further evidence.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involves homeowners who alleged they were targeted in a fraudulent mortgage foreclosure rescue scheme by multiple defendants, including Chaudhry and Farahpour, which involved false promises of credit repair and foreclosure avoidance that instead siphoned equity from their homes. After prior dismissals with leave to amend, the court addressed the defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on grounds of insufficient particularity in pleading fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and failure to state claims under RICO, RESPA, PHIFA, and gross negligence. The court denied the motions to dismiss, holding that the complaint provided adequate specific details, dates, and facts to satisfy both the heightened fraud pleading standard and the notice pleading requirements, while also addressing related counterclaims and class certification motions.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case involved Reginald Anthony Longshore's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct his federal sentence, which had been enhanced because he was classified as a career offender based on prior Maryland convictions. After some of those convictions were vacated by state courts, Longshore sought resentencing. The court granted the motion, finding it timely under the one-year statute of limitations that begins when the supporting facts could have been discovered through due diligence. The reasoning centered on Longshore's prompt and strategic actions in pursuing vacaturs of his convictions, including appeals and coram nobis petitions, without requiring simultaneous challenges to all predicates.

criminal lawprocedure

In Walker v. Gambrell, a Treasury Department employee sued her supervisor and the agency for violating the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Family and Medical Leave Act by disclosing details of her miscarriage to coworkers and sending related emails, alleging improper invasion of privacy and retaliation; she sought $5,000 in damages. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), finding the complaint failed to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the disclosures were not shown to be willful or intentional under the Privacy Act, the information was not obtained through an employer-initiated medical inquiry protected by FMLA confidentiality rules, and any voluntary disclosure by the employee did not trigger a private right of action or violation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Marvin J. Perry, Inc. (MJP) seeking to recover defense costs from its insurer, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, after being sued by Perry & Wilson, Inc. for trademark infringement related to the use of a trade name. Hartford denied coverage under a business liability policy, citing exclusions, and MJP filed suit for breach of the duty to defend. Applying Maryland law, the court examined the policy terms and underlying complaint, found that exclusions applied to bar potential coverage, and granted summary judgment to Hartford, denying MJP reimbursement of its fees and costs.

business & regulatory